---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 20:31:25 -0500
From: chris rickey <crickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: heidegger and Greek
>I may be able to help with the Loewith reference.
>
>There may be a confusion here. It is Loewith's persistent thesis that
>Heidegger's political engagement was in some way conditioned by his
>"decisionism" as described in Being and Time, thereby portraying Loewith's
>very ambiguous relation to Heidegger's work. On the one hand Loewith
>wishes to support the existential "structural analytic of Dasein", the
>"middle part" of Being and Time, on the other, he is a critic of the
>introduction (arguing that it is too much like the later work).
>
>The actual reference is not, I think a letter, and does not directly refer
>to Being and Time. It is to be found in "Mein Leben in Deutschland vor
>und nach 1933 - Ein Bericht" (Stuttgart, Metzler 1986), published
>posthumously, although Loewith repeatedly plunders this work in order to
>form others. The whole work is translated as "My Life in Germany Before
>and After 1933 - A Report" by Elizabeth King, London, Athlone, 1994. The
>reference in German is p. 57, the English p. 59, in a section entitled
>"Mein letztes Wiedersehen mit Husserl in Freiburg 1933 und mit Heidegger
>in Rom 1936" (My last reunion with Husserl in Freiburg in 1933 and with
>Heidegger in Rome in 1936). Richard Wolin has a translation of the
>relevant part in "The Heidegger Controversy" London, MIT, 1993, p. 141.
>
>The relevant passage reads:
>
>... I (Loewith) tried to induce him to comment freely (on the situation in
>Germany) ... I was of the opinion that his partisanship for National
>Socialism lay in the essence of his philosophy. Heidegger agreed with me
>without reservation, and added that his concept of 'historicity' formed
>the basis of his political 'engagement'.
>
>By the time of this encounter (1936) Heidegger had already elaborated in
>some detail his understanding of the difference between "Historie"
>(usually translated as historiography) and "Geschichte" (history as such,
>but from which we get all the connected references of the "Schicken"
>(sending) of being, das "Schicksal" - the fated or fatefulness of being
>etc. Certainly in 1937 (Gesamtausgabe 45) Heidegger lectured at length on
>the difference between Historie and Geschichte, and it is a theme he
>returns to again and again both before and after the war. It is therefore
>conceivable that Sein und Zeit is not particularly being referred to here
>(in Rome) by Heidegger, although goodness only knows what Loewith thinks
>he is talking about. As far as I can tell Loewith's particular defence of
>what he liked in Heidegger is a defence of something that only ever
>existed in his own head.
>
>If there is a letter, I would be interested to know about it.
Loewith attended a conference at Rome at which Heidegger gave a talk (on
Hoelderlin). They met afterwards. What you cited is Loewith's
recollection of the meeting.
Heidegger elaborated the difference between Historie and Geschichte in
Being and Time as well. The distinction can be dated back at least to
1921.
Chris
We will stand nowhere, where the flamethrower has not completed through
annihilation the great cleansing. - Ernst Juenger
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---